Random Raves XXXV: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

[Borachio]

Or you could write "it has" instead of "its". .

Could I? I don't think I could. Or rather I think I shouldn't.

And they're not really time-savers, they're just the way people speak.

Don't most languages elide things?

Hmm. Maybe it is a matter of time saving, or energy saving, rather.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Bulgarian, at least written, has almost no...elides? It's full, concise, and for the most time, clear.
Now, spoken Bulgarian has plenty of vowel reductions that for the most cases don't help.

 

[Borachio]

Elisions.

Still. Written Bulgarian has none? Even in "direct speech"?

 

[choxorn]

I also thought that Tolni was older than that.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Actually, there is! In several cases, consonants are being cut off.
But deeper research shows what I suspected: Bulgarian is hella complicated, with enough exceptions to drive you mad.

 

[sophie]

There's really nothing to the it's/its business.

"Its" is the possessive. And the reason it doesn't have an apostrophe (like it should for any other normal noun) is simply to avoid confusion with "it's", which is the contraction of "it is".

It's really quite simple. (Now I wanted a catchy sentence with "it's" and "its" in it, but I can't think of one for the moment.)

Here's one from Yahoo:

Yeah, it's kind of like there/their/they're. Or who/whom. I don't really understand how people get it wrong so often. It's no more confusing than a/an, and nobody ever seems to have a problem with that.

 

[Arakhor]

And you're older than I thought.

I don't feel as if I'm mid-30s, but that's what my birthdate tells me.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Time's running out Arakhor

nah don't worry

 

[Arakhor]

This is the Raves thread, not the Rants thread.

 

[madviking]

Yeah, it's kind of like there/their/they're. Or who/whom. I don't really understand how people get it wrong so often. It's no more confusing than a/an, and nobody ever seems to have a problem with that.

http://www.clickhole.com/quiz/how-much-grammar-nerd-are-you-2292

 

[Hygro]

well it's weird because we use apostrophe-S to denote ownership so "its" could reasonably be "it's"

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So, this is going to stop being a long-distance relationship then?

Nope. She has to go back west in about ten days. No worries. We signed on to a bigger cause and in spite of our mad, deep, insanely passionate love for each other, our life's work is more important. We would not have it any other way.

How It Happened I asked her to marry me on May 20, 2014. She unhesitatingly said "yes." She then went back to Chicago. This year, she came back to NYC for a month, as usual. We were having a discussion about the oppressive nature of saying "my fiancée," and she said "that's not the problem I have with calling you 'my fiancé' <ahem>"

So we set the date for Sunday April 19th.

Oh, boy, I have never been so excited!

 

[Borachio]

well it's weird because we use apostrophe-S to denote ownership so "its" could reasonably be "it's"

Well, I disagree. It isn't weird.

Possession is indicated with an apostrophe, with exactly one exception: "its". And it's "its" only to indicate it isn't "it's".

Orthographic rules are like that: for every rule there's at least one exception.

So you learn the rule (in this case possession indicated by the apostrophe), and you learn the exceptions. In this case it's easy because there's only the one: "its".

 

[azzaman333]

While I can't say I'm happy with the manner in which I dealt with her, I am happy that I'm not quite desperate enough to have a crack at the completely smashed (definite alcohol, possible other drugs) girl who I think was trying to hit on me while I waited for a train.

 

[The_J]

Sounds like you're a good human being . You should give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, I disagree. It isn't weird.

Possession is indicated with an apostrophe, with exactly one exception: "its". And it's "its" only to indicate it isn't "it's".

Orthographic rules are like that: for every rule there's at least one exception.

So you learn the rule (in this case possession indicated by the apostrophe), and you learn the exceptions. In this case it's easy because there's only the one: "its".

There also should not be apostrophes in other possessive pronouns like hi's, he'r, or thei'r.

There should be apostrophes in contractions, such as it's and 'tis.

 

[Borachio]

Or mi'ne, thi'ne, our's, and your's? Yes. That's a good point.

Isn't it strange? I'd never thought of "mine" as a contraction of "my one", before.

*gasp*

 

[MagisterCultuum]

"Mine" actually is not a contraction. It is derived from the Old English word "min" which comes from older Proto-Indo-European possessive adjectives.

Remember that Old English was a declined language with inflections as complex as those of Latin or Greek.

Incidentally, the apostrophe in most possessives comes from the false notion that they were all contractions rather than inflections.

I believe it was in Middle English, or maybe very early Modern English, after the regular inflections of Old English had been forgotten and except for pronouns only the nominative and genitive forms remained, that ignorant but pedantic scribes decided to over-correct things.

They decided that a phrase like "the king's crown" was actually a shortened form of "the king his crown." In formal documents they even started writing it out the long way.

They took "his" to be a pretty much universal possessive particle, so they would write "the queen his dress" as well rather than "the queen her dress" or the queen'r dress."

 

[sophie]

I believe it was in Middle English, or maybe very early Modern English, after the regular inflections of Old English had been forgotten and except for pronouns only the nominative and genitive forms remained, that ignorant but pedantic scribes decided to over-correct things.

Whoops can't read

 

[Borachio]

In that case, I feel obliged to point out that "their" isn't a contraction either, but comes via the Old Norse "theirra". (written with a thorn, of course)

(Otherwise it would just be me that looked foolish. And we can't be having that. Not all the time, anyway.)